Better graphics in 0.9 than .87

stealth420 · 02-08-2010, 10:22 PM

Its kinda weird but my graphics have improved with 0.9

I got my pc about 2-3 years ago.

I have a Nvidia GT 7950

3 Gb Ram , and a dual core proccessor

My view distance in .87 was 90% , now its up to 95% and i have increased textures to high and most of the other graphics which i used to run on medium.

I have only encountered 2 problems on 2 maps. On fallujah in some neighborhoods i get low FPS for about 3 seconds then it goes away and on Lakashar Valley when flying the Lynx chopper i some times get a black screen in some areas of the map which causes me to crash the chopper.

But other than that my comps running fine and even better than before.

Bluedrake42 · 02-08-2010, 11:49 PM

Mine's completely opposite, same specs except I've got a better vid card tho I have trouble running this game on low (especially in certain maps where looking in a certain direction lags the hell out of me)

Bringerof_D · 02-09-2010, 12:09 AM

this is curious indeed. my PC is pretty much straight out of the box standard purchase from bestbuy mid to low end specs, the only upgrade i've gotten is a 9800GT. i'm running 0.9 fine, infact slightly better than .87 as you've said minus a few spots in large city maps.

and of course people with much better rigs are complaining about sudden fps drops. maybe those people are whining simply about the number, as if i recall from animation class your eyes cant track images past 15(?) frames per second anyways. i dunno this is one weird bug.

Nebsif · 02-09-2010, 02:46 AM

^ past around 28 fps, not 15, 15 fps is horrible, and thats what I get playin fallujah with 3 gigz ram, dual core and Gforce9600GT.
Anyway, about better graphics and stuff, any1 noticed that vehicle textures, atleast on the T-90 are kinda blurry and low res now?

[R-DEV]motherdear · 02-09-2010, 02:57 AM

you will need about 30 fps at an absolute minimum to have a smoothish game

HellDuke · 02-09-2010, 03:53 AM

I think the human eye can track about 24-25 frames/second...

[R-DEV]ZZEZ · 02-09-2010, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HellDuke

I think the human eye can track about 24-25 frames/second...

You can detect far more, take a look at a game playing at 100 fps and then quickly change to even 40fps, you'll feel the "sluggish drop" even that 40fps is perfectly acceptable.

Movies run at 25 frames per second.

Malchuth · 02-09-2010, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]ZZEZ

You can detect far more, take a look at a game playing at 100 fps and then quickly change to even 40fps, you'll feel the "sluggish drop" even that 40fps is perfectly acceptable.

Movies run at 25 frames per second.

Yeah...the reason of different fps is in the difference between the frames presented in reality and in movies or games.

How many frames per second can the human eye see?

Garack · 02-09-2010, 08:33 AM

i can only live without tearing, means: 60 frames stck vsync in every sitatuation..this is smooth.

rudy_eila · 02-09-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]motherdear

you will need about 30 fps at an absolute minimum to have a smoothish game

30 FPS isn't that good... I feel some slight lag
I get 86 yaay:d

02-08-2010, 10:22 PM	#1
stealth420 Join Date: Sep 2009 United States of America Posts: 129	Better graphics in 0.9 than .87 Its kinda weird but my graphics have improved with 0.9 I got my pc about 2-3 years ago. I have a Nvidia GT 7950 3 Gb Ram , and a dual core proccessor My view distance in .87 was 90% , now its up to 95% and i have increased textures to high and most of the other graphics which i used to run on medium. I have only encountered 2 problems on 2 maps. On fallujah in some neighborhoods i get low FPS for about 3 seconds then it goes away and on Lakashar Valley when flying the Lynx chopper i some times get a black screen in some areas of the map which causes me to crash the chopper. But other than that my comps running fine and even better than before.

02-08-2010, 11:49 PM	#2
Bluedrake42 Join Date: Jul 2009 United States of America Location: Louisville KY Posts: 42	Re: Better graphics in 0.9 than .87 Mine's completely opposite, same specs except I've got a better vid card tho I have trouble running this game on low (especially in certain maps where looking in a certain direction lags the hell out of me)

02-09-2010, 12:09 AM	#3
Bringerof_D Join Date: Nov 2007 Canada Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,031	Re: Better graphics in 0.9 than .87 this is curious indeed. my PC is pretty much straight out of the box standard purchase from bestbuy mid to low end specs, the only upgrade i've gotten is a 9800GT. i'm running 0.9 fine, infact slightly better than .87 as you've said minus a few spots in large city maps. and of course people with much better rigs are complaining about sudden fps drops. maybe those people are whining simply about the number, as if i recall from animation class your eyes cant track images past 15(?) frames per second anyways. i dunno this is one weird bug.
	DankE_SPB - "no, only medic has parachute, other squad members have to be revived after landing" [R-DEV]Dunehunter - "Also, if you want, you can have your money back?" [R-CON]nedlands1 - "...or if you have some foot/hand amputee fetish which compels you to shoot people in the limbs." referring to situations where one may notice the lesser damage of the Chinese pistol

02-09-2010, 02:46 AM	#4
Nebsif Join Date: Aug 2009 Isreal Posts: 222	Re: Better graphics in 0.9 than .87 ^ past around 28 fps, not 15, 15 fps is horrible, and thats what I get playin fallujah with 3 gigz ram, dual core and Gforce9600GT. Anyway, about better graphics and stuff, any1 noticed that vehicle textures, atleast on the T-90 are kinda blurry and low res now?
Nebsif Join Date: Aug 2009 Isreal Posts: 222	Soon: "Soon" does not imply any particular date, time, decade, century, or millennia in the past, present, and certainly not the future. "Soon" shall make no contract or warranty between any PR staff member and the end user. "Soon" will arrive some day, the DEVs do guarantee that "soon" will be here before the end of time.

02-09-2010, 02:57 AM	#5
[R-DEV]motherdear PR:BF2 Developer Join Date: Mar 2007 Denmark Location: søndersø, Fyn, Posts: 1,066 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Better graphics in 0.9 than .87 you will need about 30 fps at an absolute minimum to have a smoothish game
	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Quoting [R-DEV]OkitaMakoto "Talking squad level tactics in bed is actually a little known aphrodisiac"

02-09-2010, 03:53 AM	#6
HellDuke Join Date: Apr 2007 Lithuania Location: Vilnius, 26 kilometres south of Europe center Posts: 497	Re: Better graphics in 0.9 than .87 I think the human eye can track about 24-25 frames/second...
	“Respond intelligently even to unintelligent treatment.” - Lao Tzu Never heard of Lithuania? Territory To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !!! Yes I know the map is old, but that doesn't really matter now does it? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

02-09-2010, 08:33 AM	#9
Garack Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 272	Re: Better graphics in 0.9 than .87 i can only live without tearing, means: 60 frames stck vsync in every sitatuation..this is smooth.
Garack Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 272

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links